Integration of clinical and patient‐reported outcomes in surgical oncology. BJS 2013; 100: 28-37.
Published: 20th November 2012
Authors: R. C. Macefield, K. N. L. Avery, J. M. Blazeby
Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) provide information about the patient perspective and experience of undergoing surgery for cancer, but evidence suggests that they are not used widely to influence practice. This review considers key challenges and opportunities for using PROs effectively in gastrointestinal surgical oncology, drawing on principles learnt from surgical oncology in general.
Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in surgical oncology reporting PROs as primary or secondary outcomes, and studies examining methods to communicate PRO information, were identified. Common themes are summarized and the future of PRO studies considered.
Reviews highlighted the need for improved design, conduct and reporting of PROs in RCTs in surgical oncology. Main issues related to the multiplicity of PRO measures hindering data synthesis and clinical understanding, problems with missing data risking bias, and limited integration of clinical and PRO data undermining the role of PRO data in practice. Reviews indicated that patients want PRO data to meet information needs and early work shows that graphically displayed PROs are understood by patients.
PROs have a role in the evaluation of surgical oncology, but increased consensus and collaboration between surgeons and methodologists is needed to improve the design, conduct and reporting of PROs with clinical outcomes in trials. Possible solutions include investing more effort and systematic thought into the PRO rationale in RCTs, the development and use of ‘core outcome sets’ with PROs, and implementation of the extension to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting PROs in RCTs. Copyright © 2012 British Journal of Surgery Society Ltd. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.Full text
You may also be interested in
Short‐term medical treatment of hypercalcaemia in primary hyperparathyroidism predicts symptomatic response after parathyroidectomy.
Authors: A. Koman, S. Ohlsson, R. Bränström, Y. Pernow, R. Bränström, I.‐L. Nilsson et al.
Development and evaluation of the General Surgery Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skill (GOSATS).
Authors: Y. Halwani, A. K. Sachdeva, L. Satterthwaite, S. de Montbrun
Randomized controlled trial of plain English and visual abstracts for disseminating surgical research via social media.
Authors: S. J. Chapman, R. C. Grossman, M. E. B. FitzPatrick, R. R. W. Brady
Authors: H. K. James, A. W. Chapman, G. T. R. Pattison, D. R. Griffin, J. D. Fisher
Network meta‐analysis of urinary retention and mortality after Lichtenstein repair of inguinal hernia under local, regional or general anaesthesia.
Authors: J. H. H. Olsen, S. Öberg, K. Andresen, T. W. Klausen, J. Rosenberg
Effect of donor nephrectomy time during circulatory‐dead donor kidney retrieval on transplant graft failure.
Authors: L. Heylen, J. Pirenne, U. Samuel, I. Tieken, M. Coemans, M. Naesens et al.
Authors: L. Cairncross, H. A. Snow, D. C. Strauss, M. J. F. Smith, O. Sjokvist, C. Messiou et al.
Dysregulation of the actin scavenging system and inhibition of DNase activity following severe thermal injury.
Authors: R. J. Dinsdale, J. Hazeldine, K. Al Tarrah, P. Hampson, A. Devi, C. Ermogenous et al.
Authors: C. A. Sewalt, E. Venema, E. J. A. Wiegers, F. E. Lecky, S. C. E. Schuit, D. den Hartog et al.
Validation of the Norwegian survival prediction model in trauma (NORMIT) in Swedish trauma populations.
Authors: P. Ghorbani, T. Troëng, O. Brattström, K. G. Ringdal, T. Eken, A. Ekbom et al.